I’d second everything Dewme had to say: this complaint as written is meandering and vague, and reads like a disgruntled employee (who may — or may not — have legitimate beefs). I would strongly advise him to find a lawyer that will work for a percentage of any settlement, if possible. As written, this complaint won’t pass muster with any judge. I make zero judgement of his claims or what if any compensation he is due.
This is typical termination case, not patent infringement. When you go to work for Apple or any other tech company you sign a document agreeing that they own everything you invent, code you write, underlying idea, etc.
This is just a beef because they fired him and he didn't get his bonus. There is a clear inference from his own filing that he whined and complained until it interfered with work getting done so he got fired. Firing him was what any company would do in this case.
Owning a patent and being listed as an inventor on a patent are two different things. Yes, Apple owns the patent but all inventors, by patent law, must be listed on the patent or it can be invalidated. Apple can't simply pick and choose who it wants to list as inventors as a reward or punishment.
You are correct. If he originated the concept that was subsequently patented, his name should have been on the patents. Next question; whose names are on the patents? Did that person take credit for this person's inventiveness?
Because there is also the issue of "fairness" here. A squishy term, to be sure, but Apple apparently did well for itself off of this person's creativity. The 735 shares (5,145 shares if offered pre-split) shows two things: First, it shows that someone at Apple thought he had extra value, or he wouldn't have been awarded the opportunity to acquire them in the first place, which basically reinforces the probability that he contributed something of real worth to Apple. Second, it represents, in itself, a reason for his supervisor to fire this person, thus permitting the supervisor to say he saved the company a handsome sum.
Crappy bosses are everywhere, including within Apple. I know that for a fact.
Owning a patent and being listed as an inventor on a patent are two different things. Yes, Apple owns the patent but all inventors, by patent law, must be listed on the patent or it can be invalidated. Apple can't simply pick and choose who it wants to list as inventors as a reward or punishment.
We only have the word of a disgruntled ex-employee regarding his contributions. But even assuming what he says is true, he would merely be entitled to credit, not the rights to the patent. It’s hard to see how that equates to hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of monetary damages.
Regarding his other claims, he is merely saying he disagrees with how Apple managers run the company. Perhaps he is right, but it is not the job of the court to judge how well managers run their company, much less intervene. Bad management is not illegal.
I, like many others have posted, find that there’s a vast difference between pre and post Jobs death. Mostly just by observing senior management from afar. The old saying that the fish stinks from the head down. I’m glad to see corroboration from a former insider.
You can clearly see that Cook is more concerned about image and making quarterly numbers than about making great products, contrary to what he says.
Well he can forget any chance of success since he has declared that "he is representing himself." That was the first red flag for me, and so i read on for more confirmation of where this was headed. Sure enough.. lots of ambiguity in his claims as others have pointed out here, such as "is this for wrongful termination or patent claim?" More likely “disgruntled employee can't pay his rent–needs money." I've been bitter over previous employer's treatment too but I had to eventually let it go and put my energy and resources into my future. Resentments can kill us and in some cases we drag family and friends down into our misery. Misery not only loves company, but also needs it to fester and survive. I wonder if he realizes that he will need to "take a number" and have a seat behind Qualcomm, and dozens of Class Action lawsuits against Apple. Good Luck with that.
Comments
Because there is also the issue of "fairness" here. A squishy term, to be sure, but Apple apparently did well for itself off of this person's creativity. The 735 shares (5,145 shares if offered pre-split) shows two things: First, it shows that someone at Apple thought he had extra value, or he wouldn't have been awarded the opportunity to acquire them in the first place, which basically reinforces the probability that he contributed something of real worth to Apple. Second, it represents, in itself, a reason for his supervisor to fire this person, thus permitting the supervisor to say he saved the company a handsome sum.
Crappy bosses are everywhere, including within Apple. I know that for a fact.
Regarding his other claims, he is merely saying he disagrees with how Apple managers run the company. Perhaps he is right, but it is not the job of the court to judge how well managers run their company, much less intervene. Bad management is not illegal.